is the title of a new paper by Dr. Carson Chow. A recent New York Times article captures Chow’s conclusions succinctly, “There’s no magic bullet on this.” So, what does it take?

A mathematician, Carson Chow has modeled the obesity epidemic. While some of the findings are surprising (e.g., an extra 10 calories a day puts more weight onto an obese person than a thinner one), the main message of his modeling is not. There’s too much food around, and we eat it.

As Claudia Dreifus summarized well in her recent New York Times article (May 14, 2012), A Conversation with Carson Chow: A Mathematical Challenge to Obesity, “weight change, up or down, takes a very, very long time.” You can experiment using your own data in this model at bwsimulator.niddk.nih.gov

Ironically, one of the key messages is that nobody wants to hear Chow’s message. The food industry is invested in selling food. They don’t want to hear about a need to reduce consumption. Neither do the consumers. It takes effort not to eat when you’re tempted by a plentitude of food.

The take-away message for me is that “it takes effort.” In fact, Dreifus ends her article by writing, “You simply have to cut calories and be vigilant for the rest of your life.”

Ouch. Now, there’s an “inconvenient truth,” as we’ve become accustomed to saying.

So, it’s about self-control. As Daniel Kahneman has explained in Thinking, Fast and Slow, it’s our System 1 (the “fast” thinking system) that’s primed to consume, and it’s System 2 (the “slow” thinking system) that has to deliberate, suppress impulses and otherwise act volitionally to avoid over-consumption. Kahneman also argues that System 2 thinking is lazy. It takes a lot of effort to reason according to logical standards, to articulate rules, to be analytic. We typically don’t want to invest in System 2 thinking. Perhaps that’s why Chow documented at 20-pound increase in average weight between 1975 and 2005. We’re too lazy to put in the effort.

Of course, being strategic helps. Although it always takes effort to exert self-control, it’s easier when we’re rested, well nourished, alert and committed to a goal. As I and other bloggers here on Psychology Today have written, strategies like making specific implementation intentions help too.

The thing is, there is no magic bullet. I like how clearly Dreifus put it, “cut calories and be vigilant for the rest of your life.” Actually, if you’re dutiful and vigilant long enough, you’ll probably establish a new habit, and it will become easier. Yet that takes us back to one of Chow’s main findings—all of this takes more time than we’d like to imagine.

It’s not surprising that Chow’s model and his conclusions are controversial. It may not only be an inconvenient truth, but it’s mathematics, and as Kahneman has also shown in his work and a review of related research, people are simply not good at thinking mathematically. It’s a System 2 type thinking that we’d rather avoid.

Inconvenient or not, the truth is about the sustained effort required to exert self-control in our goal pursuit. Here too, a recent book provides insight. This time, it’s Alfred Mele’s Backsliding: Understanding Weakness Of Will. Mele does an excellent job of integrating philosophical issues with modern psychological research findings to help us understand our willpower shortcomings. At one point (p. 104), he quotes our colleague Roy Baumeister who has written “If it were up to me to set national policy in psychological matters, I would recommend replacing the cultivation of self-esteem with the cultivation of self-control” (Baumeister, 2002; p. 130).

Given that Chow’s research has identified the overproduction of food in the U.S.—the result of a national agricultural policy—as a main contributor to the obesity epidemic, maybe Baumeister’s suggested policy is exactly what we need. Let’s fight policy with policy. At least then we won’t be relying on what seems to be one of the weakest aspects of self to overcome some of our strongest desires which are being fueled by overproduction, low food costs and strategic marketing.

Another major driver of the obesity epidemic is TV, particularly TV commercials that promote junk food.

“The association between television viewing and childhood obesity is directly related to children's exposure to commercials that advertise unhealthy foods, according to a new UCLA School of Public Health study published in theAmerican Journal of Public Health.”

“By the time they are 5 years old, children have seen an average of more than 4,000 television commercials for food annually. During Saturday morning cartoons, children see an average of one food ad every five minutes. The vast majority of these ads -- up to 95 percent -- are for foods with poor nutritional value, the researchers say.”

“"Commercial television pushes children to eat a large quantity of those foods they should consume least: sugary cereals, snacks, fast food and soda pop," Zimmerman said. The authors conclude that the availability of high-quality, enjoyable and educational programs for all ages on DVD should make it relatively easy for health educators and care providers to nudge children's viewing toward content that does not contain unhealthy messages about food and eating.”

Advertisers would not spend billions of dollars every year on TV commercials if they didn't work. Additionally, we know that young children are even more susceptible to the effects of advertising than adults. And, as advertisers themselves have discovered, children begging, demanding and pleading for what they want really does translate into increased sales.

"TV Bombards Children With Commercials For High-Fat And High-Sugar Foods"

"The sneaky and unconscious part is that people were not aware that the ads had influenced them. When the adults were asked why they were eating, they typically reported they were just hungry. As with Bargh's other research, people were not aware that their behaviors had been primed by their recent experiences. People were eating without awareness that the ads were causing them to eat.”

Science is an incredibly effective tool. And now we have a billion dollar ad industry, using the tools of science (specifically psychology) to figure out how to manipulate both children and adults into buying whatever is being advertised. Not everyone has a budget for iPads and luxury cars, but even those on a small budget can be turned into profit-centers by manipulating them into spending their money on junk food. And in the case of small children who have no money, manipulating them into using their persuasive abilities (whining and crying and refusing to eat healthy foods) to get their parents to buy junk food for them. Plus for large corporations who own media companies and junk food companies and pharmaceutical companies this is the perfect storm.

What is the solution? Ideally parents would unplug the TV. But that isn't going to happen anytime soon. But a still every effective solutions would be for parents to use DVDs, Netflicks, Tivo, etc to buy TV shows without the commercials. It used to be that commercial-free TV was impossible, but now buying Netflicks, or borrowing DVDs from the library is actually much cheaper than subscribing to cable. And last, but not least, perhaps at some point we'll have the political will to pass laws restricting TV commercials that target children. None of those solutions will succeed until more people understand the extremely powerful effect of years of exposure to TV commercials.

Most people overeat to feel good, so I'd say laziness is not the main factor. When you wake up each day and feel worthless, you're going to reach for a Cinnabon to cool those fires. Screwed-up families, consumerist society, and affordable junk food all create a perfect storm where one's will is swamped.

Hi Dr. Pychyl, I've been reading your blog with interest for a long time but I strongly disagree with the conclusions that you're drawing here and am starting to wonder if self-regulation failure in the procrastination sense is similarly misunderstood to nutrition. I recommend reading "Good Calories, Bad Calories" by Gary Taubes for an exhaustive look at the poor nutrition science that has led to the same advice being repeated ad nauseum -- eat less, exercise more. Studies have shown that something like 95%+ of all calorie-restricted diets may result in temporary weight loss but longer-term there is little weight loss and often weight gain. Either everyone is failing at self-regulating their hunger or something else is going on.

What seems to be happening is that although there is a large excess of calories produced in America, this large excess of calories is of extremely poor quality; trying to survive on few calories of poor nutritional quality results in a physiological response of hunger cravings that will almost assuredly overwhelm any self-imposed caloric limits. So really, it is quite possible that this is a problem of biochemistry self-regulation and treating it as a problem of will-power/self-control is the wrong approach.

Hi Dan,
Thanks for the comments here. I'm not advocating for "diets" per se, but a permanent change in eating habits that reflect better choices. If you look at the heritability coefficients for weight in North America as opposed to other placed in the world, yes, everyone is failing at self-regulating their eating behaviour (eating too much and too much high-calorie foods). Many people are surrounded with good food and choose foods of poor nutritional quality (as you put it) because it "tastes better" - they give in to feel good. They can make other choices, and that's the issue here in terms of self-regulation failure, isn't it?

To add to the Taubes argument, most foods consumed in North America today are carbohydrates. Carbohydrates are not filling and often lead to additional eating. Fats are filling and bring satiety. This helps with willpower or, even better, alleviates the need for willpower.

I have been on a ketogenic diet for the past two months and have lost 10 pounds. I have not exercised in that time and work a desk job. I was eating less calories and not hungry. But here's the kicker. I reached a plateau over the last two weeks at 200-202 pounds. I started eating MORE calories this week while still keeping the ketogenic eating style and broke through the plateau. I have lost two pounds in the last 4 days alone. Sometimes, the illogical is the truth.